Anyone waiting for Israeli generals and political leaders to face war
crimes charges at The Hague over January's Gaza invasion ought not to hold
their breath, despite a new report by a U.N. Human Rights Council accusing both Israel
and Hamas of war crimes during the confrontation. And despite Israel's
disquiet over losing the battle for international public opinion and
growing criticism over its actions in Palestinian territories, the Israeli
military is unlikely to do much differently the next time it goes into Gaza.

The U.N. investigation concluded that Israel's January offensive in Gaza
had been "a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish,
humiliate and terrorize a civilian population." It also slammed the Jewish
state's economic blockade of the territory. At the same time, it accused
Hamas of war crimes for firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Israel, which
refused to cooperate with the probe, slammed it as biased and accused it of
"rewarding terrorism." That follows the pattern of Israel's dismissal of a
steady stream of similar assessments of the Gaza operation by Israeli and
international human rights organizations. On the basis of its own internal inquiries, the Israeli Defense Force insists its forces took extra care to avoid civilian casualties in Gaza. But the U.N. report is potentially
more damaging, and the fact that its key author is the widely respected
Jewish South African Judge Richard Goldstone makes it more difficult to
dismiss his work as an anti-Israel smear. Goldstone has ties to Israel and
a reputation for honest exploration of politically sensitive subjects built
in the course of his work at the head of the his country's Truth Commission
and, later, of the Hague tribunal for war crimes committed in former
Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, his report is being read as a smear in the Israeli
mainstream. (See pictures of Israel's assault on Gaza.)

Unlike the charges by the various human rights groups, the U.N. report
could potentially carry legal consequences. It is scheduled to be discussed
on Sept. 28 at the U.N. Human Rights Council, where member countries might
seek to have the matter taken up by the Security Council  which can, if
it chooses, refer the matter to the International Criminal Court at The
Hague. Although political factors make such a course of action highly
unlikely at the moment, Israel's foreign ministry is taking no chances. It
is launching a diplomatic push focused on the veto-wielding five permanent
Security Council members (Russia, China, Britain, France and the U.S.) to
prevent it being taken up.

The report's release coincides with a deadlock in the Obama
Administration's efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. U.S.
Special Envoy George Mitchell is currently in Israel, struggling to bridge
the gap between the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas'
insistence that he won't talk to the Israelis unless they halt all
construction on territory captured in 1967 (a demand echoed by the U.S.),
and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's offer of only a partial freeze that
exempts projects already approved and does not apply to East Jerusalem. The
Administration had hoped to cajole Abbas and Netanyahu to join Obama for a
meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York later this
month where they would relaunch direct talks, but right now the differences
between the two sides make such an event unlikely. And at least one Israeli
commentator, Haaretz's Aluf Benn, wondered whether Obama might use the help
Israel will need in getting Goldstone's report shelved as leverage on the
settlement question. That, too, is highly unlikely for a variety of reasons,
including the fact the the Administration may have concluded from
Netanyahu's surge in popularity for resisting Obama's settlement-freeze
demand that publicly holding the conservative Israeli leader's feet to the
fire doesn't get the desired results.

Although Israel is aware of having lost the Gaza battle in the court of
international public opinion  and has warned officers involved in the
operation of the danger of arrest in third countries while traveling in
their private capacities  the operation enjoyed overwhelming domestic
political support. And Israel's heavy-handed approach in what it called
Operation Cast Lead, which inflicted heavy casualties and widespread damage
to Gaza's infrastructure, has been embraced as a model of effectiveness by
the Israeli military, because it is seen as having ensured that Israeli
forces suffered hardly any casualties while operating against a dangerous
guerrilla force in a hostile urban environment. Should Israel deem it
necessary to launch a new offensive in Gaza, it's tactics are likely to be
unchanged despite the international criticism.

Hamas, for its part, was similarly dismissive of the report's findings
on its rocket fire. "This report equates the victim with the aggressor,"
said Hamas Gaza spokseman Ismael Radwan, a statement that sums up the
Israeli position, too. At the very heart of the Israeli-Palestinian
stalemate, after all, is the question of just who is the victim.